Madmike2 said:What is this amp ?
How big (size wise not power) ?
How much ?
It isnt a chip amp correct ?
Alot of questions from a questionable guy
hello Madmike2
There is alot of info on this amp here in the forum.This one is 100wts per channel.
How much?---well it's all according to how far someone wants to go with the amp--with parts quality,dual mono etc.
I only paid 350$ used on audiogon.It was hard for me to take this amp Seriously because of the cheap price.But when i heard it i sold my tube amps.
But there is a wealth on info on this amp and the new UcD 400 which is the big brother.
regards
jeff
Hi Gertjan,
I think that we both share the opinion that power cord should make no difference. But since it does, I think this is not due to excellence of the last meter of power suply wiring but mostly due to the incompetent design of gear that is connected to this super power cord. If mains filter does make a difference (and I beleive it does, for there are technical reasons why it should), then it must be built into every piece of audio gear. Everything else is useless, since it does not solve any problem.
Best regards,
Jaka Racman
I think that we both share the opinion that power cord should make no difference. But since it does, I think this is not due to excellence of the last meter of power suply wiring but mostly due to the incompetent design of gear that is connected to this super power cord. If mains filter does make a difference (and I beleive it does, for there are technical reasons why it should), then it must be built into every piece of audio gear. Everything else is useless, since it does not solve any problem.
Best regards,
Jaka Racman
Hi Jeff,
no, if you have one mains filter as distribution box, you will still have airborne EMI garbage induced in cables after the mains filter. Also there will be influence from one piece of gear to the other since there is no filtering between them. For purely analog pieces of gear (linear amplifier, preamplifier, turntable without electronic regulation of RPM) that should not be such a problem, but throw into that CD player, and you might have a problem.
Best regards,
Jaka Racman
no, if you have one mains filter as distribution box, you will still have airborne EMI garbage induced in cables after the mains filter. Also there will be influence from one piece of gear to the other since there is no filtering between them. For purely analog pieces of gear (linear amplifier, preamplifier, turntable without electronic regulation of RPM) that should not be such a problem, but throw into that CD player, and you might have a problem.
Best regards,
Jaka Racman
Jaka Racman said:
So one mains filter close to the outlet (far away from equipment) and shielded power cables to the equipment and each piece of equipment it's own mains filter, and of course all equipment nicely shielded and preferably all XLR connected.
Would that be the ideal case?
Best regards
Gertjan
phase_accurate said:
So that is why I proposed to have a mains filter on each piece of equipment as well. That should do the thrick wouldn't it?
Of course then we will get complaints of a too high series resistance due to all those filters. Anyway, if each piece of equipment has its own mains filter, I guess we can skip the one at the outlet just assuming that al equipment is sufficiently shielded so that the equipment and cables don't pick up any HF rubbish from the mains cables and the mains cables in the wall.
After all my stuff (amps and power supplies) is finished (will take a while) I will start looking into mains contamination, but it is very low on my priority list.
Gertjan
Best regards
Gertjan
Hello again guys
Now i do have a 12 A powervar conditioner.It uses a toroidal transformer and wieghs in at around 45lbs.Purchased it already modded.The guy installed porter pots unplated cryod receptacles ,damnpening material, and Stillpoints ERS covering 90% of the underside (above transformer) of the cover and sides (each side of transformer) of the cover.
1 -- sonicap .47 uF 600V cap in parallel on each receptacle.
I have always read not to have digital plugged into the same conditioner with other equipment.But my setup sounds better to have everything plugged into the powervar.Imaging ,depth improves with all my equipment plugged in the powervar.I all so have a much cleaner detailed sound.
From what i have read i guess it would be the most optimal to have a powervar for each piece of equipment?
regards
jeff
Now i do have a 12 A powervar conditioner.It uses a toroidal transformer and wieghs in at around 45lbs.Purchased it already modded.The guy installed porter pots unplated cryod receptacles ,damnpening material, and Stillpoints ERS covering 90% of the underside (above transformer) of the cover and sides (each side of transformer) of the cover.
1 -- sonicap .47 uF 600V cap in parallel on each receptacle.
I have always read not to have digital plugged into the same conditioner with other equipment.But my setup sounds better to have everything plugged into the powervar.Imaging ,depth improves with all my equipment plugged in the powervar.I all so have a much cleaner detailed sound.
From what i have read i guess it would be the most optimal to have a powervar for each piece of equipment?
regards
jeff
RogerWilco said:
Hi Jeff,
You had dropped me a mail privately, however, when I replied it bounced back. So here is my reply to that mail.
Hi RogerWilco,
> I have a UcD 180 and you had replied to my post in the forums on my unit
> with cables.It seems like you know what you are taking about so i have a
> question.
Thanks for your trust in my opinion. I'm an electrical engineer but not in
the audio field. Audio is a hobby and I just recently started building amps
and power supplies again. So I don't have much experience with tweaking
components. I'm looking at many things just as an engineer trying to judge
whether some changes could make a difference yes or no from an engineering
point of view, these opinions are not necessarely backe up by experience. Of
course I experiment but my free time is limited so I limit my choices. For
the input caps on my UcDs I use BG HQ NX caps, the reason is that in my case
I have the earliest UcD180 version that has the NE5532 opamp that needs the
caps in between opamp and modulator.
> My ucd 180 has --2 ---12 mf caps per channel. I was thinking on adding
> .10 teflon or mundorf silver in oil bypass caps
>
> Sense i did not biuld this and know very little on the design i was
> wondering if using 1-- .10mf bypass cap on each of the 4-- 12mf sonicaps
> would make a difference in sound.Or if this is an overkill
I think it is overkill. Likely you can make the main caps smaller which will
probably have more sonic benefit.. I do not know which UcD version you have.
There is a version where the coupling caps are before the opamps and a
version where they are after the opamps in between the opamps and UcD
modulator. In case the caps are placed before the opamp, you can make them
much smaller (so they can be higher quality). The input resistance of the
input stage (opamps) is 100k (except for some very early version that were
lower), so even a cap of 1uF would work very well, giving a high-pass filter
at 1.6Hz so leaving audio frequencies completely untouched.
Best regards
Gertjan
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.